Home › Research › Digital health tools
Machine Learning to Develop and Internally Validate a Predictive Model for Post-operative Delirium in a Prospective, Observational Clinical Cohort Study of Older Surgical Patients
Racine AM, Tommet D, D'Aquila ML, Fong TG, Gou Y, Tabloski PA, Metzger ED, Hshieh TT et al.. Journal of general internal medicine, 2020-10-19
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Our objective was to assess the performance of machine learning methods to predict post-operative delirium using a prospective clinical cohort. Methods We analyzed data from an observational cohort study of 560 older adults (≥ 70 years) without dementia undergoing major elective non-cardiac surgery. Post-operative delirium was determined by the Confusion Assessment Method supplemented by a medical chart review (N = 134, 24%). Five machine learning algorithms and a standard stepwise logistic regression model were developed in a training sample (80% of participants) and evaluated in the remaining hold-out testing sample. We evaluated three overlapping feature sets, restricted to variables that are readily available or minimally burdensome to collect in clinical settings, including interview and medical record data. A large feature set included 71 potential predictors. A smaller set of 18 features was selected by an expert panel using a consensus process, and this smaller feature set was considered with and without a measure of pre-operative mental status. Results The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was higher in the large feature set conditions (range of AUC, 0.62-0.71 across algorithms) versus the selected feature set conditions (AUC range, 0.53-0.57). The restricted feature set with mental status had intermediate AUC values (range, 0.53-0.68). In the full feature set condition, algorithms such as gradient boosting, cross-validated logistic regression, and neural network (AUC = 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.83) were comparable with a model developed using traditional stepwise logistic regression (AUC = 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.82). Calibration for all models and feature sets was poor. Conclusions We developed machine learning prediction models for post-operative delirium that performed better than chance and are comparable with traditional stepwise logistic regression. Delirium proved to be a phenotype that was difficult to predict with appreciable accuracy.
Key findings
- Results The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was higher in the large feature set conditions (range of AUC, 0.62-0.71 across algorithms) versus the selected feature set conditions (AUC range, 0.53-0.57).
Why it matters
In 560 older surgical patients without dementia, machine learning models predicted post-operative delirium with area-under-the-curve values of 0.62 to 0.71 using a large feature set. This concerns delirium after surgery, not treating, curing or preventing Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Study designcohort study
- Participants134
- Effect sizeAUC = 0.71; AUC = 0.69
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 65/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 62 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 65 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of general internal medicine) |
| Journal's citation record | 3 / 4 | Journal of General Internal Medicine: journal h-index 283 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A cohort study following people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 134 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 4 / 7 | Cited 62 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 3 / 5 | 8.9 citations a year over 7 year(s) since 2021 |
| Impact for its field and year | 3 / 6 | Cited 3.9× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 2 / 6 | Cited by 3 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 2 / 4 | Cited 35 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Katherine Tasker holds only 3 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | 3 / 3 | Harvard University: institution h-index 3,235 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 2 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 9 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33078300) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 62 / 96 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 62 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 65 out of 100. |
| Total | 65 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
- DOI: 10.1007/s11606-020-06238-7
- PubMed: 33078300
- Original source →
- Free full text: Journal of General Internal Medicine →
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Racine, A. M., Tommet, D., D'Aquila, M. L., Fong, T. G., Gou, Y., Tabloski, P. A., et al. (2021). Machine Learning to Develop and Internally Validate a Predictive Model for Post-operative Delirium in a Prospective, Observational Clinical Cohort Study of Older Surgical Patients. Journal of general internal medicine. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-06238-7
Vancouver
Racine AM, Tommet D, D'Aquila ML, Fong TG, Gou Y, Tabloski PA, et al. Machine Learning to Develop and Internally Validate a Predictive Model for Post-operative Delirium in a Prospective, Observational Clinical Cohort Study of Older Surgical Patients. Journal of general internal medicine. 2021. doi:10.1007/s11606-020-06238-7. PMID: 33078300.
BibTeX
@article{racine2021-33078300,
author = {Racine, A. M. and Tommet, D. and D'Aquila, M. L. and Fong, T. G. and Gou, Y. and Tabloski, P. A. and Metzger, E. D. and Hshieh, T. T. and others},
title = {{Machine Learning to Develop and Internally Validate a Predictive Model for Post-operative Delirium in a Prospective, Observational Clinical Cohort Study of Older Surgical Patients}},
journal = {Journal of general internal medicine},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1007/s11606-020-06238-7},
pmid = {33078300},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-06238-7}
}
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Later studies that cite this one
3 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.